Trump, Khan and Islam in America
By Raymond Shipley
With another week comes more "controversy" in the US election. It was revealed the DNC rigged the primaries against fan favorite, Bernie Sanders, the media is desperate to show some connection between Trump and Russia, and the Donald removed a crying baby from his event. An eventful week, it seems.
In brief, the removal of a crying baby was the parent's responsibility, and I cannot fathom why a family would bring an infant to a Trump rally in light of the recent mayhem. That Trump waited as long as he did, giving ample opportunity for the responsible party to take care of the issue, should not be overlooked. The same people complaining about Trump's actions are likely the same that will "shush" a person whispering in a movie theatre. The Trump connection to Russia is such a joke I don't even believe the MSM is buying it, despite their willingness to sell. And the true scandals, the DNC email leak and Clinton's avoidance of federal prosecution - guilt be dammed - have been tactfully hidden from view in light of nonsensical Trump "scandals."
But it is Khizr Khan, the Muslim "Gold Star Father", that has proven to be the biggest thorn in the side of Trump. In true Left fashion, statistics are cast aside and pure anecdote is used to advance an argument that fails any and all tests of logic. As long as the suffering of the alleged victims is amplified, facts can be circumvented and a lost cause can be found again.
So, what was the essence of Mr. Khan's argument? Simply that Donald Trump hasn't read the Constitution, denying the entry of any demographic is inherently unconstitutional, and Muslims have sacrificed for this nation where Trump has not. No allegations of misconduct, illegality or theft - those truthful allegations are reserved for Clinton. But facts and logic have no place in this argument, unless the proverbial light is removed from the tantrum throwing distraction and the truth is allowed to shine on its own.
Has Trump read the US Constitution? Born in 1946, Donald Trump is 70 years old. He is a college graduate, published author, successful entrepreneur and has been involved in US politics, in one way or another, for around 30 years. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest Trump has not read the Constitution. It has been argued Trump's statement that Khan has no right to make such allegations is proof of his ignorance of said Constitution, because it violates Khan's 1st Amendment right to free speech. This is false in that slander, or the making of false statements in order to damage a person's reputation, is a crime and not protected as free speech. Moreover, there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that bars the government from denying entry to unwanted or undesirable demographics, especially on grounds of national security. The president has such authority, granted under 8 USC §1182, which states in part:
“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."
Democratic President Jimmy Carter enacted this during his term against Iran, and it is perfectly legal and Constitutional for Trump to do the same (it has recently been clarified individuals from nations with active terrorist organizations or ties would be denied and not Muslims as an entire demographic). Likewise, President Eisenhower successfully deported illegals during his time as POTUS and somehow is still all American, and all Constitutional. Democratic POTUS Franklin D. Roosevelt's internment of Japanese citizens wasn't Constitutional, but let us not get distracted in criticizing the champion of modern progressivism.
Who is Khan?
Khizr Khan, who is a Muslim immigrant from Pakistan, lost his son in the War on Terror. If Trump had his way, Khan's son, a hero that died for his country, would never have been here. Such a sacrifice, the death of a son, cannot be understated or trivialized. However, using a person's sacrifice to advance a personal, and business agenda is a disgrace. Khizr Khan, who founded "The Journal of Contemporary Issues in Muslim Law", has written that Sharia supersedes the US Constitution and actively works to assist immigrants from Islamic countries in immigrating to the US. Simply put, Khan has little respect for US Law, and it would cost him money if Trump were allowed to temporarily ban immigration from hostile nations. Again, it is shameful to use the death of a family member as a business move, and hypocritical to wave the Constitution while claiming another law overrules it. Admittedly, waving the Quran would not have went over as well, but would have been more truthful.
Islam in America
Muslims have been in the United States since its inception, a fact anyone who defends Trump is brow beaten with immediately, and yet the first overseas deployment of US troops was to fight its barbarism in North Africa. The marines still sing of this conflict today, because even Thomas Jefferson, that champion of individual liberty, couldn't stomach the atrocities inherent in such uncivilized societies. Likewise, before the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 abolished the quota system that created the country that put a man on the moon, Muslim citizens were a token of the population at best. It is worthy of note that since the revolutionary 1960s, the United States has steadily been in decline economically, socially and morally. This is likely due to many factors, with immigration being one of them.
So, how much sacrifice have Muslim Americans made for this country since the declaration of the War on Terror? For this I shall define sacrifice as lives given as part of the US armed forces, since that has been the definition Khan has given (qv his own son's death and accusations Trump was a "draft dodger"). Staff Sergeant Daniel Isshak, Specialist Omead H. Razani, Captain Humayun Saqib Muazzam Khan, Marine Staff Sergeant Kendall Damon Waters-Bey, 1st Lieutenant Mohsin A. Naqvi, Major James M. Ahearn, Specialist Kareem R. Khan, Specialist Rasheed Sahib, Specialist Azhar Ali and Staff Sergeant Ayman A. Taha have all died in combat while fighting for the US since 2001. These are the Muslims that have died fighting, in uniform, against the terrorism that plagues the West. Reports say there are several more, totalling 14 who have died fighting terrorism. If this seems like a pittance, just wait...
Hasan K. Akbar, Sergeant in the United States army, murdered two and wounded 12 American soldiers on March 23, 2003 in an attack at Camp Pennsylvania in Kuwait. Nidal Hasan murdered 12 soldiers (and one civilian) during his attack at Ft. Hood in 2009. Wikipedia states 31 soldiers and one civilian police officer were wounded by Hasan. This totals 14 dead American soldiers who have been killed at the hands of our Muslim brothers in arms. This number does not include the scores of US soldiers murdered by allied Muslim troops in so-called "green on blue attacks" in the middle east. Khizr Khan's son may have been a hero, and there was sacrifice made; however, this sacrifice was Captain Khan's alone, and in no way a sacrifice collectively made by Muslim Americans. It would seem for every Muslim American in uniform sacrificed for the United States, a life is taken as payment by Muslim Americans in uniform. Hardly seems worth it.
"Shout" it Out
Khizr Khan simply needs to be washed away like a stain on dirty clothes. Although his son's sacrifice is significant, his own argument is invalid. Khan should serve a single purpose, and that is to showcase the corruption and nefarious nature of the Democratic Party. He is yet another example that even while trying to score a point their single minded, anti-American agenda shines through.